Feasibility of a RCT of techniques for managing an impacted fetal head during emergency caesarean section: the MIDAS scoping study.

Background: Second-stage caesarean sections, of which there are around 34,000 per year in the UK, have greater maternal and perinatal morbidity than those in the first stage. The fetal head is often deeply impacted in the maternal pelvis, and extraction can be difficult. Numerous techniques are reported, but the superiority of one over another is contentious and there is no national guidance. Objective: To determine the feasibility of a randomised trial of different techniques for managing an impacted fetal head during emergency caesarean. Design: A scoping study with five work packages: (1) national surveys to determine current practice and acceptability of research in this area, and a qualitative study to determine acceptability to women who have experienced a second-stage caesarean; (2) a national prospective observational study to determine incidence and rate of complications; (3) a Delphi survey and consensus meeting on choice of techniques and outcomes for a trial; (4) the design of a trial; and (5) a national survey and qualitative study to determine acceptability of the proposed trial. Setting: Secondary care. Participants: Health-care professionals, pregnant women, women who have had a second-stage caesarean, and parents. Results: Most (244/279, 87%) health-care professionals believe that a trial in this area would help guide their practice, and 90% (252/279) would be willing to participate in such a trial. Thirty-eight per cent (98/259) of parents reported that they would take part. Women varied in which technique they thought was most acceptable. Our observational study found that impacted head is common (occurring in 16% of second-stage caesareans) and leads to both maternal (41%) and neonatal (3.5%) complications. It is most often treated by an assistant pushing the head up vaginally. We designed a randomised clinical trial comparing the fetal pillow with the vaginal push technique. The vast majority of health-care professionals, 83% of midwives and 88% of obstetricians, would be willing to participate in the trial proposed, and 37% of parents reported that they would take part. Our qualitative study found that most participants thought the trial would be feasible and acceptable. Limitations: Our survey is subject to the limitation that, although responses refer to contemporaneous real cases, they are self-reported by the surgeon and collected after the event. Willingness to participate in a hypothetical trial may not translate into recruitment to a real trial. Conclusions: We proposed a trial to compare a new device, the fetal pillow, with a long-established procedure, the vaginal push technique. Such a trial would be widely supported by health-care professionals. We recommend that it be powered to test an effect on important short term maternal and baby outcomes which would require 754 participants per group. Despite the well-known difference between intent and action, this would be feasible within the UK. Future work: We recommend a randomised controlled trial of two techniques for managing an impacted fetal head with an in-built internal pilot phase and alongside economic and qualitative substudies. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry 4942. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Text: One-quarter of UK pregnant women have a caesarean section. Most of these procedures are straightforward, but in a small number of cases unexpected complications can make the birth difficult. One complication, an impacted fetal head, may happen when caesarean sections are done in the second 'pushing' stage of labour. If the baby's head is low and wedged in the woman's pelvis, lifting it can be difficult, which can result in damage to the mother's womb and vagina, and to her baby. Occasionally, babies die. There are different techniques doctors and midwives can use to make these births easier, but there is uncertainty around which is best. To plan a trial to test these techniques, we needed to know how often impacted head happens, what techniques are used to manage it and whether or not research is acceptable to parents and health-care professionals. We surveyed doctors and midwives to find out which techniques they use and what training they need. We surveyed parents and pregnant women and interviewed women who had experienced a second-stage caesarean. We collected information from UK hospitals to find out how common this is and the impact on women and babies. We found out the following. List: • Around 7% of caesareans take place in second stage, and impacted fetal head occurs in 16% of these births. List: • One-third of women would consent to take part in a trial, if the complication happened to them. List: • Nearly all midwives and doctors thought that this research was important and would be willing to take part. Text: Using all of the information we collected, we designed a clinical trial. We wanted to compare two techniques for managing an impacted fetal head. The first is the vaginal push technique, where the doctor or midwife puts their hand into the mother's vagina to push her baby's head up, and the second is the fetal pillow, a device inserted into the mother's vagina before the operation starts to dislodge the baby's head upwards.

Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: the BEEP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children (The BEEP trial): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atopic eczema (AE) is a common skin problem that impairs quality of life and is associated with the development of other atopic diseases including asthma, food allergy and allergic rhinitis. AE treatment is a significant cost burden for health care providers. The purpose of the trial is to investigate whether daily application of emollients for the first year of life can prevent AE developing in high-risk infants (first-degree relative with asthma, AE or allergic rhinitis). METHODS: This is a protocol for a pragmatic, two-arm, randomised controlled, multicentre trial. Up to 1400 term infants at high risk of developing AE will be recruited through the community, primary and secondary care in England. Participating families will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive general infant skin-care advice, or general skin-care advice plus emollients with advice to apply daily to the infant for the first year of life. Families will not be blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be a blinded assessment of AE at 24 months of age using the UK Working Party Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Secondary outcomes are other definitions of AE, time to AE onset, severity of AE (EASI and POEM), presence of other allergic diseases including food allergy, asthma and hay fever, allergic sensitisation, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and safety of the emollients. Subgroup analyses are planned for the primary outcome according to filaggrin genotype and the number of first-degree relatives with AE and other atopic diseases. Families will be followed up by online and postal questionnaire at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months with a face-to-face visit at 24 months. Long-term follow-up until 60 months will be via annual questionnaires. DISCUSSION: This trial will demonstrate whether skin-barrier enhancement through daily emollient for the first year of life can prevent AE from developing in high-risk infants. If effective, this simple and cheap intervention has the potential to result in significant cost savings for health care providers throughout the world by preventing AE and possibly other associated allergic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry; ID: ISRCTN21528841 . Registered on 25 July 2014.

Randomised controlled trial of silk therapeutic garments for the management of atopic eczema in children: the CLOTHES trial.

BACKGROUND: Atopic eczema (AE) is a chronic, itchy, inflammatory skin condition that affects the quality of life of children and their families. The role of specialist clothing in the management of AE is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of silk garments for the management of AE in children with moderate to severe disease. DESIGN: Parallel-group, observer-blind, randomised controlled trial of 6 months' duration, followed by a 2-month observational period. A nested qualitative study evaluated the beliefs of trial participants, health-care professionals and health-care commissioners about the use of silk garments for AE. SETTING: Secondary care and the community in five UK centres. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 1-15 years with moderate or severe AE. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised (1 : 1 using online randomisation) to standard care or standard care plus 100% silk garments made from antimicrobially protected knitted sericin-free silk [DermaSilkTM (AlPreTec Srl, San Donà di Piave, Italy) or DreamSkinTM (DreamSkin Health Ltd, Hatfield, UK)]. Three sets of garments were supplied per participant, to be worn for up to 6 months (day and night). At 6 months the standard care group received the garments to use for the remaining 2-month observational period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - AE severity using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) assessed at 2, 4 and 6 months, by nurses blinded to treatment allocation. EASI scores were log-transformed for analysis. Secondary outcomes - patient-reported eczema symptoms (Patient Oriented Eczema Measure); global assessment of severity (Investigator Global Assessment); quality of life of the child (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility - 9 Dimensions), family (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire) and main carer (EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-3 Levels); use of standard eczema treatments (e.g. emollients, topical corticosteroids); and cost-effectiveness. The acceptability and durability of the clothing, and adherence to wearing the garments, were assessed by parental/carer self-report. Safety outcomes - number of skin infections and hospitalisations for AE. RESULTS: A total of 300 children were randomised (26 November 2013 to 5 May 2015): 42% female, 79% white, mean age 5 years. The primary analysis included 282 out of 300 (94%) children (n = 141 in each group). Garments were worn for at least 50% of the time by 82% of participants. Geometric mean EASI scores at baseline, 2, 4 and 6 months were 8.4, 6.6, 6.0, 5.4 for standard care and 9.2, 6.4, 5.8, 5.4 for silk clothing, respectively. There was no evidence of difference between the groups in EASI score averaged over all follow-up visits adjusted for baseline EASI score, age and centre (ratio of geometric means 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.07; p = 0.43). This confidence interval is equivalent to a difference of -1.5 to 0.5 in the original EASI scale units. Skin infections occurred in 39 out of 141 (28%) and 36 out of 142 (25%) participants for standard care and silk clothing groups, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY of silk garments for children with moderate to severe eczema was £56,811 from a NHS perspective in the base case. Sensitivity analyses supported the finding that silk garments do not appear to be cost-effective within currently accepted thresholds. LIMITATIONS: Knowledge of treatment allocation may have affected behaviour and outcome reporting for some of the patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of silk garments to standard AE care is unlikely to improve AE severity, or to be cost-effective compared with standard care alone, for children with moderate or severe AE. This trial adds to the evidence base to guide clinical decision-making. FUTURE WORK: Non-pharmacological interventions for the management of AE remain a research priority among patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77261365. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Investigating the effect of independent, blinded digital image assessment on the STOP GAP trial.

BACKGROUND: Blinding is the process of keeping treatment assignment hidden and is used to minimise the possibility of bias. Trials at high risk of bias have been shown to report larger treatment effects than low-risk studies. In dermatology, one popular method of blinding is to have independent outcome assessors who are unaware of treatment allocation assessing the endpoint using digital photographs. However, this can be complex, expensive and time-consuming. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of blinded and unblinded outcome assessment on the results of the STOP GAP trial. METHODS: The STOP GAP trial compared prednisolone to ciclosporin in treating pyoderma gangrenosum. Participants' lesions were measured at baseline and at 6 weeks to calculate the primary outcome, speed of healing. Independent blinded assessors obtained measurements from digital photographs using specialist software. In addition, unblinded treating clinicians estimated lesion area by measuring length and width. The primary outcome was determined using blinded measurements where available, otherwise unblinded measurements were used (method referred to as trial measurements). In this study, agreement between the trial and unblinded measurements was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The STOP GAP trial's primary analysis was repeated using unblinded measurements only. We introduced differential and nondifferential error in unblinded measurements and investigated the effect on the STOP GAP trial's primary analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-six (80%) of the 108 patients were assessed using digital images. Agreement between trial and unblinded measurements was excellent (ICC = 0.92 at baseline; 0.83 at 6 weeks). There was no evidence that the results of the trial primary analysis differed according to how the primary outcome was assessed (p value for homogeneity = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Blinded digital image assessment in the STOP GAP trial did not meaningfully alter trial conclusions compared with unblinded assessment. However, as the process brought added accuracy and credibility to the trial it was considered worthwhile. These findings question the usefulness of digital image assessment in a trial with an objective outcome and where bias is not expected to be excessive. Further research should investigate if there are alternative, less complex ways of incorporating blinding in clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, www.isrctn.com ISRCTN35898459. Registered on 26 May 2009.

UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network's STOP GAP trial (a multicentre trial of prednisolone versus ciclosporin for pyoderma gangrenosum): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare inflammatory skin disorder characterised by painful and rapidly progressing skin ulceration. PG can be extremely difficult to treat and patients often require systemic immunosuppression. Recurrent lesions of PG are common, but the relative rarity of this condition means that there is a lack of published evidence regarding its treatment. A systematic review published in 2005 found no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) relating to the treatment of PG. Since this time, one small RCT has been published comparing infliximab to placebo, but none of the commonly used systemic treatments for PG have been formally assessed. The UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network's STOP GAP Trial has been designed to address this lack of trial evidence. METHODS: The objective is to assess whether oral ciclosporin is more effective than oral prednisolone for the treatment of PG. The trial design is a two-arm, observer-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial comparing ciclosporin (4 mg/kg/day) to prednisolone (0.75 mg/kg/day). A total of 140 participants are to be recruited over a period of 4 years, from up to 50 hospitals in the UK and Eire. Primary outcome of velocity of healing at 6 weeks is assessed blinded to treatment allocation (using digital images of the ulcers). Secondary outcomes include: (i) time to healing; (ii) global assessment of improvement; (iii) PG inflammation assessment scale score; (iv) self-reported pain; (v) health-related quality of life; (vi) time to recurrence; (vii) treatment failures; (viii) adverse reactions to study medications; and (ix) cost effectiveness/utility. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of PG (excluding granulomatous PG); measurable ulceration (that is, not pustular PG); and patients aged over 18 years old who are able to give informed consent are included in the trial. Randomisation is by computer generated code using permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by lesion size, and presence or absence of underlying systemic disease (for example, rheumatoid arthritis).Patients who require topical therapy are asked to enter a parallel observational study (case series). If topical therapy fails and systemic therapy is required, participants are then considered for inclusion in the randomised trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials: ISRCTN35898459. Eudract No.2008-008291-14.